4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Wrocław.
5.  On 23 April 1999 the applicant notified the authorities of the illegal conversion of premises (a former boiler room) adjacent to his apartment into a grocery shop.
6.  On 23 June 1999 administrative proceedings were initiated by the District Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction (Powiatowy Inspektorat Nadzoru Budowlanego).
7.  On 15 July 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court – Regional Branch – in Wrocław alleging that the Regional Construction Inspector had failed to take any action. On 8 September 1999 the applicant withdrew his complaint, as a result of which, on 20 September 1999, the court decided to discontinue its examination.
8.  On 17 August 1999 the District Construction Inspector made an on-site inspection. The applicant failed to participate in the inspection, despite having been informed about it.
9.  On 23 August 1999, following a visit to the site, the District Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction issued an injunction against the illegal conversion of the premises in question.
10.  On 7 September 1999 a party to the proceedings filed an appeal against the decision of 23 August 1999.
11.  By a letter of 9 September 1999 the applicant was informed that all the evidence had been collected in the case.
12.  By a letter of 21 September 1999 the owner of the premises, the housing co-operative “Maślice” (Spółdzielnia Budowlano-Mieszkaniowa), ordered Mr J. Sz., who had been leasing the former boiler room and running the grocery shop, to cease his activities with immediate effect.
13.  On 29 September 1999 the District Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction ordered the housing co-operative to bring the existing situation of the premises into conformity with the law by submitting a set of required documents (post-construction documentation and expert opinions). The Inspectorate alleged that the construction was not compatible with the local master plan.
14.  On 5 October 1999 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision.
15.  On 26 October 1999 the housing co-operative filed with the District Inspectorate the documents requested in the decision of 29 September 1999. The co-operative further requested that permission be granted for the grocery shop.
16.  On 20 December 1999 the Regional Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction upheld the impugned decision, finding that it had been issued in accordance with the law.
17.  On 28 December 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.
18.  On 2 June 2000 the applicant filed an application to have the decision of 20 December 1999 suspended. His application was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 12 June 2000 due to the applicant’s failure to substantiate his allegations that he would incur damage.
19.  On 9 August 2000 the District Inspectorate decided to have the case transferred to the relevant department of the Municipality Office.
20.  On 19 October 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 28 December 1999. The court found that the construction works carried out in the grocery shop met the technical requirements and were in compliance with the local master plan.
21.  On 13 December 2000 the Mayor of Wrocław granted the housing co-operative the requested permission. Relying on all the documents collected in the case, the Mayor found that the premises met all the technical requirements and could be converted into a grocery shop.
22.  On 3 January 2001 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision.
23.  On 28 February 2001 the Dolnośląski Governor quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to the first-instance body for reconsideration, finding the proceedings to be tainted with procedural shortcomings. He stressed, in particular, that no on-site inspection had been carried out.
24.  On 11 May 2001 the Mayor of Wrocław again granted the housing cooperative the requested permission, following visits to the site in question on 17 and 20 April 2001.
25.  On 9 July 2001 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 28 August 2001 the Dolnośląski Governor upheld the Mayor’s decision.
26.  On 3 September 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal against the Governor’s decision with the Wrocław Regional Administrative Court.
27.  On 16 June 2004 the Wrocław Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against that judgment.
28.  On 31 May 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case to the Wrocław Regional Administrative Court for reconsideration.
29.  On 22 November 2005 the Wrocław Regional Administrative Court quashed the Governor’s decision of 28 August 2001. It found that some evidence had been disregarded during the examination of the case and that some of the discrepancies in the findings of the various administrative bodies had not been clarified.
30.  On 21 March 2006 the Dolnośląski Governor remitted the case for re-examination by the District Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction.
31.  On 27 March 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Wrocław Regional Administrative Court alleging that the Dolnośląski Governor had failed to take any action following the court’s judgment of 22 November 2005.
32.  In January 2007 the applicant received a letter from the District Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction informing him that clarification proceedings (postępowanie wyjaśniające) had been instituted in order to establish the current facts of the case.
33.  By a letter of 23 July 2007 the applicant asked the Municipality Office whether the lessee of the premises had a licence to sell alcoholic beverages in the grocery shop. In reply, on 22 August 2007, the applicant was informed that the licence had been granted in 2006 following consultations with the relevant authorities.
34.  On 29 August 2007 the District Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction decided to reinitiate administrative proceedings.
35.  On 30 January 2008 the District Inspectorate decided that the obligations imposed by the decision of 29 September 1999 had been complied with and that the construction works carried out in the premises had been brought into line with the law.
36.  It appears that the applicant filed an appeal against that decision and that the proceedings are currently pending.
37.  On 9 August 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Wrocław Regional Administrative Court had been excessive and just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) – the maximum amount of compensation available under section 12 of the 2004 Act (approximately 2,941 euros (EUR)).
38.  On 19 September 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that there had been three years and ten months of unjustified inactivity on the part of the Wrocław Regional Administrative Court. It awarded the applicant PLN 1,000 (approx. EUR 294) in just satisfaction. In determining the amount of just satisfaction the court relied on the nature of the case and the period of time the applicant had had to wait to have his case examined, but also on the “lack of initiative on the part of the applicant in terms of requesting the court to give his case priority or to examine the case under the simplified procedure”.
39.  The Supreme Administrative Court examined only the part of the administrative proceedings which had been held before the Regional Administrative Court. It did not take into account the period during which the case had been handled by administrative bodies, because the 2004 Act referred only to “judicial proceedings”.